Did the “Lost Decade” Scar Younger Investors?

By Anne Tergesen

iStockPhoto

Much has been written about how young people, in reaction to a “lost decade” for U.S. equity returns, are turning away from stocks—following in the footsteps of those who experienced the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.

In fact, this is only partly true.

According to a recent report by The Vanguard Group, Inc., those born between 1970 and 1979, “are now less likely to own any equities than in the past.” Citing data from the Investment Company Institute, Vanguard reports that only about 35% of today’s 32 to 41-year-olds own equities—down from close to 50% in 2001. In contrast, just over half of those born between 1960 and 1969 say they own equities today. In 2001, the figure for that age group was somewhere just north of 55%.

“The stagnation in equity ownership levels that characterizes all of the generations over the last ten years has impacted the youngest generation at a much earlier age,” says the report, written by John Ameriks, the head of Vanguard’s Investment Counseling and Research Group, and Stephen Utkus, director of the company’s Center for Retirement Research.

Still, when it comes to investments in retirement accounts, the story couldn’t be more different. When Vanguard looked at the average equity allocation of 20-year-old participants in 401(k) plans, it found their average equity allocation has actually risen—from 40.7% in 2003 to 84.7% in 2010. Moreover, the report adds: “While there is evidence that overall equity ownership among younger generations of U.S. investors has fallen in recent years, we find that within defined contribution plans, younger investors actually have higher equity allocations than previous cohorts had at the same age.”

Why are young investors embracing equities in 401(k) plans while shunning them elsewhere? Vanguard credits the growing use of automatic enrollment and target date funds—“both as defaults under automatic enrollment plans and” as standalone options.

Target date funds in particular have “significantly altered asset allocations among participants of all ages,” but “most notably among younger investors,” the report says.

When Vanguard looked at the asset allocations of investors ages 35 or younger at year-end 2010, it found that those in target date funds held 8.5 percentage points more in equities than those not in the funds. Among those ages 36 to 54, the gap was only slightly lower—7.9 percentage points.

For younger investors, the report adds, this is good news: After all, they “arguably have the greatest ability to assume equity market risk in pursuit of higher potential returns.”

This is the best medium to share information to user about the Investment risk and benefits to youngster.I am also in same profession and W’d like to share more useful tips about the Professional Indemnity Insurance as you did in this article.

I’m 37 and 100 percent in equities (index funds and broad etfs) and will be until my 50′s. Why? Because stocks have averaged 10 to 12 percent returns since the Civil War. That means markets have performed to that level through scores of recessions, world wars, financial panics and various bubbles. Environments worse than this one.

We had a massive hot streak from 1987 to 2000 so it was bound to cool off and revert to the mean for an extended period. But that also means the market is due to take off again, which means present prices are a BARGAIN.

Investing in equities is a zero-sum game. When you sell, that means someone is buying.

So please continue to be fearful especially when so many companies have such strong balance sheets and are beating their earnings projections each quarter. Me and other investors will be there for the fire sale.

10:55 pm August 17, 2011

Oswald wrote:

Today public debt debt per household is around 200K USD. That is more than the average home price in America. What does that mean? It means even if you paid your mortgage, you still owe as much as an average house!

The private debt is even worse! Our entire money supply is borrowed money. When we borrowed, we promised to pay back with interest! Principal + interest does not exist. Therefore it is not possible to earn it to pay it back with interest! That is why previously fine individuals and businesses are going bankrupt! the crash is built into the monetary system. It cannot be avoided. There is no free lunch. What was borrowed from the future will be paid back. The real cause of the problem is debt based monetary system.

Search Encore20

About Encore

Encore examines the changing nature of retirement, from new rules and guidelines for financial security to the shifting identities and priorities of today’s retirees. The blog also explores news that affects retirement, from the Wall Street Journal Digital Network and around the web. Lead bloggers are reporter Catey Hill and senior editor Jeremy Olshan. Other contributors include The Wall Street Journal’s retirement columnists Glenn Ruffenach and Anne Tergesen; the Director for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, Alicia Munnell; and the Director of Research for Pinnacle Advisory Group, Michael Kitces, CFP.